About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
CSPAN 3
CNBC 1
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
FBC 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
point -- that speaker boehner showed yesterday in his remarks. he basically said that the president won the election, and he should lead. he basically, he said that he was open to revenues. which is, which many in his own party disagree with. um, so i thought the tone was the right thing. now, you know, you can't expect the speaker to turn on a dime in 24 hours and embrace everything; higher taxes, higher taxes on the wealthy. but i think that privately he's seen the handwriting on the wall, and it makes me very hopeful that we can do something big in the next month and a half. it's a good first step. um, i would say two things, though, in relation to it. when you unpack the speaker's speech, there is a premise that doesn't quite work, and we're going to have to help him move others in the republican party away from it. it's called -- part of his speech he talked about dynamic scoring. this idea that if you cut taxes, you will increase revenues. well, it's about time we debunked that myth. it's a rumpelstiltskin fairy tale, dynamic scoring. if you may remember, rumpelstiltskin was the f
speaker boehner tell it, republicans have to swallow their pride and just stay in line, and tea party said they made him speaker and better watch how he is speaks. >>guest: why don't we all talk about rather that who getting in line and who is cooperating with who, what is the best thing for our country? wouldn't it be nice to have a leader in washington who said, wait, it is not about just working together for a show but what is best for our country, and, neil, there are very hard decisions to be made and i don't think we should compromise on things that are not good for all of us in america. >>neil: you may feel that way struckly and i have admired the fact you stick to your guns no matter the crosswind but the president is going to claim, elections have consequences and it was close, but i won, and i won despite this call for higher taxes, maybe because of it, and the rich have to deal. you say, what? >>guest: well, i say, first, just because you win an election, that doesn't noon you get to go off the rails and do what is not good for america because you have some weird agenda. two, ta
'll feed the needy. doge dart. >> doge: new rules. >> eliot: house speaker john boehner may not want to raise marginal tax rates on the wealthiest americans but he would probably be surprised to hear the view of one subset of the so-called 1%. they gave us our number of the day. 220. that's how many folks make up the patriotic millionaires. 2-year-old group that's asking for higher tax rates on the rich. on themselves. these are certifiably rich people including game publisher carlston and the founder of the men's wearhouse george zipper. about a dozen of them visited washington, d.c. yesterday to advocate reasonable policies such as a clinton era top tax rate of 39.6%. considering the escalation we've seen on the incomes of the top 1%, they want a new tax bracket for anyone making more than $10 million a year. yes, these patriotic millionaires would like their own tax rates to go up. you have to be nuts to actually want to pay more in taxes? no. not nuts. in fact, you don't even have to do it as a matter of fai
driving the decisions made here. i think citing i believe speaker boehner, it's fair to say that the president also believes we don't -- he's not looking to box himself in or box other people's ideas out. as we approach the conversation that will be in on friday. >> suggest to the meeting that just took place they might have to give up more than they would like? >> i think the president has made very clear that everyone, throughout this process, not just in this past week since the election, but for some time now, that the whole point of compromise is that nobody gets to achieve their maximalist position. that was the approach we took throughout negotiations in 2011 and it's the principle the president has based his own proposals on. if you look at, again, the programs that the president has already cut through legislation he signed into law, if you look at the savings he's willing to enact as part of his plan, it demonstrates a willingness to give so that you can meet your negotiating partner somewhere in the middle and reach a deal. >> you don't have any specific -- >> i d
in the washington post this morning. a picture of president obama and john boehner. the upbeat tone was a dramatic shift from recent years when the president and a gop fortified by anti-government activists clashed repeatedly over spending and taxes. if he were to go to yesterday's new york times, they have a listening are at least pictures of the key leaders that will be involved in this process. to show you where they stand specifically on some issues, here is the president saying he will reject any bill that extends tax cuts for the wealthy. here is john boehner who has said raising tax rates is unacceptable and a new revenue should be generated by economic growth spurred by a simpler tax code and that closes loopholes and and deductions. there are some other leaders involved in this project. what do you think they will be able to do to keep the fiscal cliff from happening by the end of the year? that meeting taking place at the white house. here is some video from it. if you are looking at that again and you want to wait and on this topic, you can call in. your confidence on congressional lead
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
bipartisan spirit. [ mumbling like boehner ] >> stephanie: we're going to make job creation more difficult. really? you're just going to continue with the same talking point? the job rates. >> the job creators-- [ mumbling ] >> stephanie: weren't those tax cuts supposed to expire two years ago? >> stephanie: yes, yes. >> that's too quick for them. >> stephanie: well yeah the president obviously gave in the last time. he said at the time this was an one-time thing. and as you recall he did it at the time because he was--it was over, you know, unemployment. you remember, it was right before christmas and they were going to cut off yeah, any way. economists from both parties say that a return to the recession is likely unless they compromise on the legislation. obama said everybody's taxes will go up including those who when make make less, and as an alternative. i don't know why they don't do this. he suggested paying legislation immediately to pre-event tax hike on everybody's income. >> that would make sense. >> stephanie: a measure that has already passed the senate. and he said we should
, it is not going to make a difference. john boehner needs to stand his ground. he needs to say we can bring in more revenue, reform the tax code but won't raise taxes on anyone at this time. if the republican party doesn't stand for something, then they may as well call themselves another set of democrats. charles: the republican party was deemed the party of no for the last couple of years, and i think it hurt them at the polls. do they have to compromise somewhere? >> they will likely have to compromise but where they shouldn't compromise is raising taxes. that's going to affect economic output. even cbo talks about another drop in economic output. our gdp growth -- charles: if they don't raise taxes, how do they do it? what does boehner mean by revenue? >> you have to cut out subsidies. along with that tax reform is necessary so companies can make more money, small businesses. if you make it so they can be better companies, bigger companies, hire more people, even a a part timer, you can't to increase economic output. >> articulate why that's not the solution. explain to people why raising taxes
to acknowledge speaker john boehner and house majority leader cantor and our democratic leader nancy pelosi for their support of this bill. i thank my colleagues, the gentlelady from guam, and also from the northern mariana islands, ms. bordallo, and mr. sablan, for their co-sponsorship of this bill. mr. speaker, today american samoa faces a serious problem of tobacco smuggling, as i'm sure it's the same with the other territories. according to a recent study two years ago, as many as five million, five million d 5,792,924 cigarettes were smuggled into the territory. the study found that tobacco smuggling resulted in the loss of about $724,,116 in revenues to the american samoa government. if continued undeterred, tobacco smuggling in the territories will include to heavier losses in local tax revenues, especially if cigarettes' excise tax rates were to be increased. mr. speaker, in this age of government fiscal responsibility, securing and sustaining stable resources of local revenue streaming is essential and must be encouraged for the territories. it was for this reason why i began to lo
to give? john boehner was asked an said he's willing to give a little on loopholes. but not a single question. he says he takes a balanced approach and that's what the people in the room think. he's balanced. same thing on benghazi. we have all these questions on benghazi and they are not answering. you have to go to denver to get a local radio host? megyn: there were two questions about benghazi. one was from ed henry. but they only had eight questions. i knew that sitting in this anchor chair. they my that. they are the white house press corps. you are telling me these are all issues that matter to some americans. climate change, immigration and so on. but when you only have eight questions and there isn't a question about how we are going to gets the debt under control or what we are going to do about the 23 million americans. >> i agree about whether he was going to meet with mitt romney was a waste of a question. megyn: if you had 20, go for it. >> i think we all agree on all sides that that was definitely a waste of a question. i want to push back on this softballing president
that are relevant. because mitt romney's no longer relevant. go to john boehner, go to mitch mcconnell and say let's promote these policies that help poor people that help the middle class that promote jobs. that's what the president's been trying to do. that's what he's calling for in saying that the wealthy should pay their fair share. it'd be nice of some of these moderate thinkers or new thinkers like jindal actually held the republicans who are in power to task a little more instead of kicking the last guy down the road. >> you tweeted this, ana navarro, livid at romney saying obama won because offered minorities "gifts." as if he didn't alienate hispanics enough wliel running. look in mirror, mitt. >> i'm very upset about the comments mitt romney made. it shows him having sour grapes. that's not a great exit for a man who just lost. you need to look at yourself, the campaign. go and look at the film. how did you run your campaign towards hispanic, african-americans? are you satisfied with what you did? does it correlate with the amount you got? also, it's frankly offensive. i can tell you as
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)